Study Temurah folio 8B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Abaye says: No, actually, the baraita is referring to an unblemished animal when the Temple is standing, but it is speaking of a firstborn offering outside of Eretz Yisrael, and it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who said: If unblemished firstborn offerings came from outside of Eret
§ The Talmud raises an objection from the Mishnah: R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: What is this comparison for me? If a priest does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which priests do not acquire during the animals’ lifetimes, will you say the same with regard to a firstborn, w
Ravina said: This Mishnah too is referring to a firstborn offering outside of Eretz Yisrael, and it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who said: If unblemished firstborn offerings came from outside of Eretz Yisrael, they may be sacrificed on the altar. The priests do not acquire firstbo
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that acquisition of the firstborn offerings by the priests is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. The baraita states: In the case of a firstborn offering, when it is in the house of its owner, who did not yet give it to a priest, its owner can render another
Apparently, the opinion of R' Shimon ben Elazar is identical to that of the first tanna. What is their dispute? What, is it not correct that this is what the first tanna is saying: Once it is in the house, i.e., possession, of the priest, the priest can render a substitute for it, but the owner